DCI rules proposals released

[Jeff Ream]

One has to wonder how the placements in the top 5 would have been affected last year had something like this been in effect. Would we have seen a different winner? Let's face it, there weren't many babies flying around for BD's show last year.

regardless of how much or little I liked BD, they would have won

[Jeff Ream]

A more objective approach would be to measure the dopamine levels in the brains of all the members of the audience. Could be a

few logistics and legal hurdles to this though.

Musical Chills: Why They Give Us Thrills.

ah #### science even found it's way in here :tongue:

[Jeff Ream]

Yes. Cheap and disingenuous, among other things.

If it changed a placement based on some innocuous evaluation of "entertainment" as rendered by one or two judges from their singular references, that would be a travesty. If it didn't change placement, that would also be a travesty because this pointless exercise would not have differentiated anything.

Let me cast this discussion in different terms.

Can agree on this? Any corps ought to be able to win based on the quality of its music and visual performance, including the playing, marching, and spinning of brass, percussion and guard.

Now, if we agreed on that - and I can't imagine we don't - how can "entertainment" figure into the equation? Corps should win based on the quality of music and visual performance, etc., so long as it is entertaining? I don't think so.

HH

if they actually judged the sheets right, i think some of this would be moot

[Jeff Ream]

There's nothing on this sheet that shouldn't already be covered by the GE sheets.

Yet Mason felt it worthwhile to submit the proposal.

Why? Because he wants to give his corps an unfair advantage?

I don't think so.

IMO it's clear:

• he feels the interpretation of the GE Sheets is broken
• no amount of judge "re-training" is going to fix it
• the only way around those two items is create a new caption

What was the intent of the GE sheets anyway? To reward shows that "work", that successfully connect with and entertain audiences. It's the opposite viewpoint of "excellence for excellence's sake". Not only must you be good, you must package your 'good' in such as way that the audience is willing to consume it.

Does this place boundaries on design? Absolutely. You can be as deep and intellectual as you want so long as you don't lose your audience's attention along the way. Ultimately that's what entertainment is: something that grabs and holds your attention. It does not imply "schlock". It does not require cookie cutter shows. It does require that you take the audience along with you on your journey through the show.

[Jeff Ream]

General Effect DOES reward shows that "work:" 'entertainment' is a VERY small part of the current sheets, and generally the GE sheet (while possibly the easiest caption to disagree with) does work.

I'm going to be blunt, and I'm sure I'll get disagreement and whatnot, but here it goes:

"Entertainment factor" is the cop-out argument of mediocre design or teaching staffs. Can't design a show that effectively maxes out the sheets? Cop-out, blame the judges for not rewarding you even though the crowd likes you. Can't clean a show well enough to achieve a high placement? Cop-out and blame the judges for not rewarding you even though the crowd likes you. It's a lame argument that is typically used under-achieving corps who typically are not close in design or execution and instead must resort to grasping at straws.

We are only two seasons removed from one of the crowd-friendliest shows of all-time winning DCI. There are several instances where the crowd loves the winning show.

*sub-rant* and you know why that is? Because the design and execution are generally superior to everyone else. People loved Madison in 88 because they marched and played the crap out of a well-designed show. People loved Phantom because they played the crap out of their show. There were obviously plenty of fans of Blue Devils the last two years because (you guessed it): they marched and played the snot out of their show. Drum corps fans are fickle, and they like their excellence. Cavaliers had a nice dynasty last decade because they performed the crap out of well-designed shows. For as non-fan friendly as their music might've been in 2001, 2002, or 2006 (in some people's opinion, not mine) crowds ate it up because the shows were performed well.

It's in our nature to not only find fault in corps/shows we dislike: it's also in our nature to find good in corps/shows we like. We often tend to over-think reasons why our favorite show didn't score as high as we would like. Heck, a lot of us that have marched and/or taught in the activity are trained to be hyper-critical, and that tends to apply ten-fold to our fierce rivals/competitors. But when it comes to arguments of "I liked corps X more than corps Y, so corps Y should've won," I call BS and cop-out. In nearly every instance the best playing/marching show will win DCI, and will beat the less proficient playing/marching corps. While on one level I think it's a decent idea for directors to maybe have a legit discussion about design trends in relation to delivering audience satisfaction. But to frame that discussion in a way that brings scoring changes is lame, and a cop-out.

in many ways I agree but......

DCI has in many small ways acknowledged losing paying customers because they found the product less entertaining.

what is a big part in how DCI makes money?

paying fans.

DCA has explored this option this winter too.

see a trend??

[audiodb]

Unfortunately, not everyone will be reasonable in approach. Rather, if entertainment is part of the judging criteria, I would expect more genuine pandering. Think about it. Could Blue Star risk disappearing into the esoterica of Houdini with the Scouts throwing out pinwheels and knee-lifts like so much tooth-rotting candy? Of course not.

We can say 10 points won't change any outcomes. But if we say that, why do that? No, the only reason to do this is to force corps to appeal to a lower common denominator.

Why do you presume to know that an entertainment caption would give points to knee-lifts, and not to any number of the things Blue Stars had in their Houdini show?

More importantly, why do you seem so derisive toward things that might be credited in an entertainment caption? "Lower common denominator"? I see no reason to expect either "lower" or "common".

[Jeff Ream]

I seriously hope the DCI Board/Instructors Caucus, etc. debate is as good as the one on DCP. Sadly, I don't believe there will be much debate there.

I see many of the same arguments used here used there.

[garfield]

I seriously hope the DCI Board/Instructors Caucus, etc. debate is as good as the one on DCP. Sadly, I don't believe there will be much debate there.

I don't know...considering they have three full days of caucus time to fill, and this seems the most impactful of the proposals presented, I can see this issue taking up more time that some might think.

Then again, cutting off debate would let them get to the bar a lot sooner, wouldn't it?

[Jeff Ream]

I didn't say "top" priority in my post. I just said "priority" And based on the show's I've seen in 2010, 2009, 2008, I would say that a great number of corps (almost all of them) try to appeal to audience as well as the sheets! People think about BD 2010 and suddenly think "Corps don't care about the audience, they are writing to the judges!" But honestly even last year I thought, Blue Coats, Cavies, Cadets, Boston, BK, Blue Stars, heck... most of the top 12 and a lot of the lower tier corps DID design for the audience and DID put it as "one" of their priorities.

You and most people like you try to Exaggerate a problem that designers aren't catering to the audience because they currently don't have a requirement to do so. The lack of a requirement does not mean that they aren't appealing to the audience.

Sometimes we have to know that designers are not infallible. Sometimes they just create un-entertaining shows because they didn't get their #### together. I agree that a discussion about this is good, but ONLY a discussion. Judging Entertainment will ruin the judging system that's supposed to be based on technical merits. GE already somewhat messes this up because its judged poorly, but obviously you think putting a more subjective catagory in the judging system would FIX the entertainment problem... I Disagree.

Imagine all the shows that would not have existed if designers had this entertainment caption like a gun at their back. Designers will be less risk takers, they will just put together songs that "work" or had a history of "working" like Madison did. It's a bit extreme to say but I think Madison didn't take much risk in show design last year. THey just did what "worked" and that was "good enough" to achieve the reaction they wanted. BD took a HUGE risk in show design, unimaginably so, and they pulled it off. While Madison was instantly "entertaining" it in no way compared to the risk taking that BD did.

BD "may not have" thought about the audience but maybe in indirectly they were. THey were designing a show in a way that shows were always designed in the past. They took risks, they didn't just display drum corps like it had always been, they took it to a different level, it may not have been as well received as Madison, but that corps pulled off something unworldly. And even though BD wasn't my favorite show I feel terrible that a proposal like this would basically limit the ingenuity and risk taking that BD 2010 displayed under the idea that it "might" not be entertaining.

but when directors are acknowledging things needs fixed, because attendance is being hurt by design choices, then there is a problem no?

DCI has done more public outreach to get fans feedback in the last 18 months than at anytime I ever remember. So it seems that as a result, some are looking at this info and seeing a problem.

[glory]

...Nobody disagrees that "entertaining" is subjective, but IF DCI wants to increase their market and make more money, then it will require that they "pander" to the masses. You don't have to like it, but it's true. And, one could make the argument that drum corps was all about "pandering" many years ago, but somewhere it became esoteric and like a big onion where you have to peel layers to enjoy it.

It's not rocket science folks: Put some entertaining products on the field that make the masses go home and tell their neighbors how much fun drum corps was...

I don't agree with this. I don't agree that the rule proposed will result in increased attendance any more than I agree that BD's 2010 championship will hurt attendance. If anything, it is BD's high-risk 2010 vision and excellence that is the more likely draw over time.

There used to be All-American communities in places like Garfield and Revere who waited for their annual opportunity to see drum corps again. Those communities disappeared at least as drum corps knew them. In their place came high schools who emulated drum corps and who brought parents friends to band competitions. Some of them came to see drum corps too.

There is no vast pool of audience potential waiting to be tapped for drum corps anymore. At least there is none except among those who already are conditioned by the high school way. For them, entertainment might not reference the glories of the drum corps past. Indeed, I doubt most of us in this discussion are qualified at all to parse the components of entertainment for this generation. Their music and art tastes aren’t necessarily ours. What 40-something judge will accurately judge entertainment according to their sensibilities?

I would, however, bet on that 40-something judge to get excellence right. I would bet on those judges’ ability to appreciate the demand and execution in BD 2010. That’s something that transcends generations, which is why I’ll be looking for BD 2010 to rate among the top 5 Fan Network downloads next year.

Our neighbors don’t want and might even dread that knock on the door. The new fans aren’t going to find their way from high school to drum corps because Madison does a pinwheel every year unless Madison does everything else as well as BD can. They’re not coming for the entertainment. They’re coming to be impressed.

HH